Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Points of Contention: Michael Jackson

Here at UncMo, we like to come up with new blogovations as much as we like to come up with thought-provoking, well-written posts, which is why this is only the second new recurring feature we've introduced in nearly four years, unless you count referring to oneself in the first-person plural.

Recently I was joking with someone that he should start a blog dedicated to his disagreements with another blogger. He was really going at it with this woman in the comments of her blog and feeling a little self-conscious about it. I suggested that instead of feeling bad about it, he should elevate it to the level of a whole new blog that would have a name alluding to how wrong she is.

Normally this type of idea would get left in the realm of the theoretical -- just an amusing notion. Most productive people would consider it a waste of time to publicly catalog one's petty disagreements. Not me! To me, this says, "I think we've got something here."

Therefore, here in "Points of Contention" I will chronicle various debates or disagreements as they come up.

Chances are you've had occasion to discuss Michael Jackson recently, in greater depth than you ever previously thought you would. If you didn't know before, you probably know now what camp you fall in regarding MJ: the "he was a child-molester" camp or the "he was crazy but innocent" camp.

The two best expressions of these differing viewpoints that I've seen are as follows:

"I don't give a fuck how good you can sing and dance. I got babies, you nasty motherfucker... Some of y'all lookin' at me like 'I can't believe you sayin' that. It's a setup.' Fuck a setup. Don't nobody say the same shit about you for 20 goddamn years, what the fuck is you talking about? If a motherfucker call you a crackhead for 20 years, bitch, you are smoking crack." -- Katt Williams

"I had started my investigation convinced that Jackson was guilty. By the end, I no longer believed that. I could not find a single shred of evidence suggesting that Jackson had molested a child. But I found significant evidence demonstrating that most, if not all, of his accusers lacked credibility and were motivated primarily by money." -- Ian Halperin

And there you have it: the MJ debate in a nutshell, excuse the pun.

Call me a sucker, but I am firmly in Ian Halperin's camp. He elaborates, "Jackson also deserved much of the blame, of course. Continuing to share a bed with children even after the suspicions surfaced bordered on criminal stupidity."

I believe that Jackson felt he was robbed of his childhood and tried to recapture it in his notorious sleepovers. I believe he was either conflicted about his sexuality, gay, or both. I do not believe he was a pedophile.

This is a bad position to be in around people who do believe the allegations. As far as they are concerned, Jackson was a nasty, sick person -- and who are you if you're defending such a person? I've gotten enough looks and dubious silences from others to wonder why I even bother making the argument. After all, I'm not a huge MJ fan. I like his music as much as anybody, but I never cared about him that much musically. As a person, I thought he seemed lost and crazy and sad and horrifically physically distorted. And I have to admit, Williams' riff gave me pause. Why defend him?

I don't have a particular need to be right in this case. I'm just saying what I really believe is true. In this case, since none of us were there, that's all we can do: speculate.

Please feel free to weigh in on this argument or share other debates you've been having lately.

I think he was a child molester; my husband thinks not. However, our kids were at my parents' house during the funeral, and now when they listen to "Thriller" on their shared iPod shuffle they say "I'm celebrating the life of Michael Jackson." They also asked us, "did you know that Tuesday was Michael Jackson's final farewell?" A bit much.